Gail Alexan­der

Se­nior Po­lit­i­cal Re­porter

The Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC) has filed two com­plaints with the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion, ask­ing for probes of al­leged mis­use of pub­lic funds by the Point Lisas In­dus­tri­al De­vel­op­ment Com­pa­ny (Plipde­co) board in the pur­chase of Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) Red Fete tick­ets and al­leged “mis­use of state re­sources, pub­lic sec­tor em­ploy­ees, and tax­pay­er funds to sup­port the PNM’s elec­tion cam­paign.”

In a state­ment yes­ter­day, UNC PRO Dr Kirk Meighoo said the par­ty had “pro­vid­ed clear doc­u­men­tary ev­i­dence of Plipde­co’s “il­le­gal” ex­pen­di­ture of $20,400 in tax­pay­er funds for the pur­chase of PNM “Red Fete” tick­ets, as con­firmed by an in­ter­nal mem­o­ran­dum dat­ed Feb­ru­ary 24, 2025.”

“This is an un­law­ful and un­eth­i­cal use of pub­lic mon­ey for po­lit­i­cal fi­nanc­ing. Fur­ther com­pound­ing the is­sue, Min­is­ter Ro­han Sinanan has pub­licly de­fend­ed the trans­ac­tion, false­ly sug­gest­ing that such spend­ing is part of Plipde­co’s ‘le­gal re­mit.’

“The UNC re­jects this jus­ti­fi­ca­tion out­right, as it is un­eth­i­cal and a di­rect vi­o­la­tion of the In­tegri­ty in Pub­lic Life Act. The law clear­ly pro­hibits the use of pub­lic prop­er­ty or ser­vices for ac­tiv­i­ties un­re­lat­ed to of­fi­cial du­ties.”

The par­ty’s let­ter to the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion calls for an ur­gent and thor­ough in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to:

• Whether Plipde­co’s board vi­o­lat­ed the In­tegri­ty in Pub­lic Life Act and oth­er laws by us­ing pub­lic funds for po­lit­i­cal pur­pos­es.

• Whether Plipde­co has en­gaged in oth­er in­stances of PNM fi­nanc­ing, in­clud­ing amounts, dates, and pur­pos­es.

• Whether oth­er state en­ti­ties have al­so fun­nelled mon­ey in­to PNM’s “Red Fete” or oth­er par­ti­san ac­tiv­i­ties.

• The full ex­tent of state funds that may have been redi­rect­ed to PNM’s cam­paign op­er­a­tions.

• Whether there are le­gal prece­dents pro­hibit­ing the mis­use of gov­ern­ment projects for elec­tion­eer­ing.

The UNC re­it­er­at­ed, “The In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion has a clear le­gal man­date to in­ves­ti­gate cor­rup­tion, dis­hon­esty, and abus­es of pow­er with­in pub­lic in­sti­tu­tions.

“Giv­en the on­go­ing Gen­er­al Elec­tion cam­paign, this mat­ter is of na­tion­al ur­gency, and the UNC de­mands im­me­di­ate ac­tion to pre­vent fur­ther mis­use of state funds for par­ti­san gain... We will not al­low the PNM to use the re­sources of the State as a per­son­al pig­gy bank for their po­lit­i­cal ac­tiv­i­ties.”

The UNC al­so sent a com­plaint al­leg­ing “bla­tant mis­use of state re­sources, pub­lic sec­tor em­ploy­ees, and tax­pay­er funds by Plipde­co’s board to sup­port the PNM’s elec­tion cam­paign.”

The par­ty sub­mit­ted a let­ter and Plipde­co mem­o­ran­dum, al­leg­ing that the state com­pa­ny “is ac­tive­ly and un­law­ful­ly work­ing to ben­e­fit the PNM’s po­lit­i­cal cam­paign.”

The UNC stat­ed, “A March 12, 2025 mem­o­ran­dum from Plipde­co chair­man An­nette Wat­tie to its pres­i­dent Cur­tis Denne ex­plic­it­ly or­ders the ac­cel­er­a­tion and show­cas­ing of key projects to make the PNM ‘high­ly vis­i­ble’ be­fore the April 28 gen­er­al elec­tion.”

Meighoo, whose state­ment showed the doc­u­ment, claimed it stat­ed, “Spend what is nec­es­sary. Push through the bu­reau­cra­cy. Get the job done. The PNM must be high­ly vis­i­ble through these ac­tions.”

He said, “This di­rec­tive vi­o­lates the In­tegri­ty in Pub­lic Life Act by in­struct­ing Plipde­co to ma­nip­u­late state re­sources, fast-track spend­ing, and pri­ori­tise projects for the sole ben­e­fit of the rul­ing par­ty’s re-elec­tion ef­forts. This is a se­ri­ous abuse of pub­lic of­fice and a di­rect as­sault on de­mo­c­ra­t­ic fair­ness and elec­toral in­tegri­ty.”

The UNC has asked the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion for an im­me­di­ate in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to:

• Whether Plipde­co’s Board has bro­ken the law, in­clud­ing breach­es of the In­tegri­ty in Pub­lic Life Act.

• Whether Plipde­co has en­gaged in oth­er acts of po­lit­i­cal sup­port for the PNM, in­clud­ing de­tails on amounts spent, dates, and pur­pos­es.

• Whether oth­er state en­ti­ties have been used to pro­vide po­lit­i­cal sup­port to the PNM, and if so, the ex­tent of their in­volve­ment.

• Whether le­gal prece­dent ex­ists pro­hibit­ing the use of gov­ern­ment projects as cam­paign tools to in­flu­ence elec­tions.

Meighoo added, “This elec­tion-year abuse of pow­er must be stopped. The UNC de­mands swift ac­tion from the In­tegri­ty Com­mis­sion to hold those re­spon­si­ble ac­count­able.”